Original translation to Portuguese here.
The Reactionary Nature of Post-Marxism
Pyon Kum Hui
Kim Il Sung Universit
Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung stated:
"Left and Right opportunism are bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies that have arisen within the workers' movement" (Complete Works of Kim Il Sung, Vol. 37, p. 247).
Post-Marxism, which began to be widely discussed in the capitalist countries of Europe in the 1970s, spread to several nations in the early 1990s, taking advantage of the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe. The term "post" refers to something that comes later in time or that deviates completely in space. Today, post-Marxism is interpreted in many ways: as a later phase of Marxism, a denial of Marxism, or a reformed version of Marxism. However, regardless of interpretation, all these versions share the same point: opposition and denial of the revolutionary ideology of the working class.
Post-Marxism is a degenerate reformism that completely rejects the revolutionary ideology of the working class, under the pretext that revolutionary theories such as Marxism no longer apply to the advanced "information society" of post-industrial Europe and that therefore a new theory must emerge. The main representatives of post-Marxism are Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, from the United Kingdom. Due to its malicious and cunning reformist nature, post-Marxism has become the greatest mental poison, eroding the class consciousness of the workers and the popular masses, as well as obstructing the revolutionary struggle for independence.
The reactionary nature of post-Marxism is revealed, first and foremost, in its fierce denial of working-class leadership and vanguard party theory. The concept of leadership is central to post-Marxism. Laclau and Mouffe use this idea to openly advocate a "complete break" with the leadership of the working class, as outlined by Marxism, in the struggle for socialism. To deny the leadership of the working class, the post-Marxists introduced the theory of "complex subjects" (or "pluralist subjects"). They interpret the term "subject" as a simple concept of "social actor," applying it to small social groups, individual clubs, and temporary movements.
According to post-Marxism, various classes, strata, and small groups, as well as issues of gender, race, and ethnicity, are considered "social subjects" within society. Thus, the "complex subject" is a mechanical and accidental jumble of workers, knowledge workers, semi-unemployed, women, and racial groups. Laclau argues that each "social actor" (small groups) constitutes a "subject" in its own right, and therefore the class polarization advocated by Marxism (between the working class and the capitalist class) and the "worker-centered model" has no reason to exist.
According to him, in the advanced capitalist societies of Europe, the "scientific-technological revolution" has reduced the number of manual workers, knowledge workers form the majority, and the majority of people now belong to the "middle class". Consequently, the tendencies of class polarization and worker-led class struggle are no longer visible, and Marxism, with no place in modern society, must be discarded.
By ignoring the fundamental nature and contradictions of capitalism and by proposing the mechanical combination of so-called "complex subjects" on the basis of their diversity, post-Marxists only reveal that they are opportunists in the service of bourgeois interests. In an exploitative society, the relationship of antagonism and struggle between the exploiting and exploited classes, and between the ruling and oppressed classes, constitute the basis of social relations. In capitalist society, the working class and the capitalist class are essentially in opposition, and therefore the class struggle between workers and capitalists is inevitable.
The distortion of the post-Marxists, by transforming these fundamental relations into an "egalitarian solidarity" between different "social subjects", is only a manoeuvre to deny the class struggle and the leadership of the working class. The working class can only become the central force of the revolution and fulfil its role in the revolutionary struggle when it is educated and organised under the leadership of the party and the leader. It is therefore clear that the "theory of complex subjects" advocated by the post-Marxists is an attempt to deny the leadership of the working class and the theory of class struggle led by the vanguard party.
In practice, post-Marxists openly oppose Lenin's theory of the vanguard party, claiming that this theory was based on the "particularism of the class struggle" and the "working-class centrism" of Marxism, and that in today's information society, where the "subjects of social movements" have diversified, it no longer makes sense. According to them, in the current situation in which "pluralist subjects" have become a reality, the working class can no longer represent the "subject of the movement," and the party, as the vanguard of the working class, cannot lead these "diversified subjects" with different class interests. This clearly shows the far-right reformist character of post-Marxism.
By denying the leadership of the working class and the class struggle led by the vanguard party, post-Marxists replace these ideas with a "moderate parliamentary struggle." Laclau and Mouffe argue that in the "parliamentary democracies" of Western Europe, where there are no prospects for proletarian revolution, Marxism's concept of "class struggle" must be abandoned in favor of "parliamentary politics." By advocating a "peaceful parliamentary struggle" rather than a "radical armed struggle", the post-Marxists ultimately call for submission to the bourgeois regime. History proves that no exploiting class has ever voluntarily ceded its power through democratic parliamentary processes. This demonstrates that post-Marxism is a far-right reformist current, which opposes the leadership of the working class, denies the class struggle, and futilely exalts "parliamentary struggles."
Moreover, post-Marxism denies the dictatorship of the proletariat. Although post-Marxists acknowledge that "Marxism asserts that there are only class-based democracies," they criticize this view as a "limited understanding" and advocate the "expansion of democracy," highlighting the "values proper to democracy." In practice, they promote a "radical democracy", which, according to them, transcends classes. However, the "democracy" they defend is nothing more than a disguised form of bourgeois democracy. Democracy, as a fundamental form of state activity, always has a class character. In a class society, there are only two forms of democracy: proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy. There is no such thing as a "democracy for all" or a "democratic third way".
Still, post-Marxists ignore the class nature of democracy and, in defending "radical democracy," openly deny the dictatorship of the proletariat. They claim that the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on class struggle and that in today's "post-industrial" society it no longer makes sense. They also argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat should be discarded as incompatible with "democracy", being only a "totalitarian" tendency. This argument is an attempt to justify his theory of "radical democracy" by rejecting the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat under capitalism. History proves that to speak of "pure democracy" in a class society, without reference to dictatorship, is, in itself, a reformist position.
Finally, the reactionary nature of post-Marxism is exposed in its defense of the "new social movement" as the only path to social transformation. Post-Marxists idealize Western European capitalist societies as "middle-class societies" and claim that social movements should not be class struggles but rather "citizen movements," reflecting the "pluralization of subjects" in these societies. Originally, the term "civil society" referred to the "market society" formed by the emerging bourgeoisie at the end of feudalism, a concept initially used by Hegel. In post-Marxism, "civil society" refers to the citizens of the advanced capitalist societies of Europe, where supposedly the "middle class" has consolidated.
Post-Marxists argue that, in these societies, social movements should be "new social movements", based on "egalitarian solidarity" between these diverse subjects. For them, this is the fundamental path to social transformation, representing a shift from class struggle strategies to new political strategies. This clearly reveals the reformist character of post-Marxism.
The idea that "new social movements" such as environmental protection or parliamentary struggles could replace the class struggle to achieve social transformation is an illusion. The capitalist class maintains the capitalist system, which brings them maximum profit, through counter-revolutionary forces, and no capitalist class in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power. Therefore, the idea that "new social movements" could achieve social transformation within capitalism is a cunning strategy to deceive the masses.
We must clearly understand the reactionary nature of post-Marxism and completely destroy it whenever it arises.
Source: Kim Il Sung University Bulletin (Philosophy, Economics), Vol. 62, 2016.
Available at: http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/ko/research/journals/6/2016/3/44a2e0804995faf8d2e3b084a1e2db1
No comments:
Post a Comment